Dreamland Baby Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Civil Action No. 2024-3277

Dreamland sues CPSC and related federal entities over weighted infant sleep products.
Dreamland seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under the APA, alleging agency action was arbitrary and capricious and beyond statutory authority.
Plaintiff challenges CPSC’s Safe Sleep guidance against weighted blankets/swaddles and the agency’s failure to retract related statements.
Defendants include HHS, CDC, NIH, and former CPSC Commissioner Trumka; several defendants are accused of ultra vires actions.
CPSC updated Safe Sleep guidance in 2023–2024; Trumka publicly criticized the products and pressed retailers to drop them, prompting Dreamland’s retraction petition.
The court later notes removals of commissioners and underlying procedural posture, ultimately denying most claims but preserving review of the APA arbitrary-and-capricious challenge pending the Administrative Record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final agency action under the APA?	Dreamland invokes final agency action power.	CPSC statements and actions lack final agency action.	APA finality issues debated; court proceeds to merits, emphasizing final action on retraction after considering the record.
Excess of statutory authority under CPSA?	CPSC acted beyond powers by issuing guidance without required procedures.	CPSC’s dissemination falls within authority to provide safety information.	Court finds no clear statutory overreach; Count 1 dismissed.
Arbitrary and capricious standard?	CPSC relied on CDC/NIH guidance lacking data; data-supported concerns exist.	Agency reasonably relied on collaborative public health guidance.	Without Administrative Record, cannot adjudicate; Count 4 denied at this stage but AR review pending.
Ultra vires against HHS/CDC/NIH/Trumka?	Agencies exceeded powers by public health statements about consumer products.	No clear statutory prohibition; PHSA context does not show ultra vires.	Count 2 dismissed; Count 3 dismissed.
Standing and viability of constitutional claims after removals?	Trumka’s bias and CPSA removal provisions cause ongoing harm; seek relief.	Commissioners removed; no standing for prospective relief; no redressable injury.	Counts 6–7 dismissed for lack of standing.

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (finality and final agency action analysis)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard, reasoned decisionmaking)
Soundboard Ass’n v. FTC, 888 F.3d 1261 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (finality under APA not jurisdictional; review of final action)
Swedish Am. Hosp. v. Sebelius, 691 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2010) (need for administrative record to assess rational connection)
Nyunt v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 589 F.3d 445 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (ultra vires standard requires clear statutory prohibition)